1984 PLP 478 (CLC)

(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑ ‑‑S. 10 (a)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9 and O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Jurisdiction‑Civil Courts ‑Evacuee property transferred to appellant after payment of total price and title deeds issued to him Property, held, went out of compensation pool and civil Court had jurisdiction to try suit and grant relief or injunction against purported transfer of property to respondent.‑[Jurisdiction]. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) ‑‑‑ ‑‑ S. 10 (b)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9‑‑Jurisdiction Civil Courts‑Civil Courts, held, are Courts of ultimate jurisdiction and competent to examine validity of orders of Special Tribunals as to whether same passed in accordance with law or not.‑[Jurisdiction]. Hamid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others 1974 S C M R 356 ref. This regular second appeal under section 100, C. P. C. calls in question the judgment and decree, dated 13th June, 1967 of the learned District Judge, Sialkot whereby he set aside the judgment and decree, dated 28th October, 1966 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot.

2. The facts in brief relevant to the present appeal are that one Noor Muhammad, predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellant instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No. 1 from interfering in possession of the plaintiff from portion of the building known as 'Bharat Textile Mills' Sialkot. The suit was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the suit property was evacuee property and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try suit. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :‑ (1) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit ? O. P. P. (2) Whether the injunction cannot be issued against the defendant. O.P.D. (3) Whether the property in dispute has been purchased by Irrigation Department, if so, when and with what effect. O.P.D. (4) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute, if not its effect. O.P.P. (5) Relief. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment, dated 28th October, 1966 decreed the suit in favour of the appellant. The respondent No. 1 challeng ed the aforementioned judgment and decree which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Sialkot vide the impugned judgment and reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. Hence this second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned District Judge gave no reason in the impugned judgment to hold that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It was further contended that the learned trial Court after appraisal of evidence on the record had come to the conclusion that the property in dispute was transferred in favour of the plaintiff/appellant by the Rehabilitation Department at least on 22nd November, 1961 when the appellant bad paid full price of the disputed property. Any deal made subsequently in favour of the respondent No. 1 was of no avail because the property had already gone out of the compen sation pool. It was contended that the only course open to the respondent was to get cancellation of the transfer of the land in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant and not to forcibly disturb possession of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed this appeal and stated that the land in dispute was also transferred to the respondent and posses sion of the same had also been obtained by the respondent. It was also stated that the learned District Judge in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment had given reasons to hold that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because the matter in dispute related to evacuee property and the dispute between the parties regarding their title to the property required determination by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and not the civil Court.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments of the learned lower Courts and the relevant documents on the file.

6. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent that the property in dispute was transferred in favour of the appellant and that he had already paid its total price and obtained title deeds in lieu thereof. He, has also not been able to controvert that the transfer price had been paid by the appellant prior to the purported order of transfer made in favour of the, respondent. In this view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the property in dispute was not in the compensation pool on the day it was allegedly transferred in favour of the respondent has force and cannot easily be discarded. The suit was for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in possession of the disputed property. The learned Senior Civil Judge had given cogent reasons for holding that the civil Court was competent to adjudicate upon the dispute. The plaintiff/appellant did not challenge the validity of the order passed in favour of the respondent but on the basis of his title deeds in respect of the disputed property he had filed suit for injunction against the respondent. The civil Court, therefore, was competent to try the suit and grant relief prayed therefor. The learned trial Judge also held that the disputed property after the same was transferred in favour of the appellant /plaintiff was in his possession and the suit, therefore, was maintainable. The learned first, appellate Court did not give reasons to hold that the civil Court in the instant case had no jurisdiction in the matter. In the instant case the validity of the orders passed by the Settlement Authorities transferring the property in dispute was not in dispute and the learned trial Court on the basis of the claim of the plaintiff/appellant based on orders of transfer of the disputed property made in his favour competently disposed of the suit. The civil Court is competent to examine the validity of the orders of the, special Tribunals as to whether the same are in accordance with law or not.

7. In Hamid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others (1974SCMR356) the Supreme Court held :‑ "It is a well established principle that even where the jurisdiction of civil Courts is barred and conferred upon special Tribunals, civil Courts being Courts of ultimate jurisdiction will have the jurisdiction to examine the acts of such forums to see whether their acts are in, accordance with law or are illegal or even mala fide." I

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal succeeds. It is accordingly accepted, the impugned, judgment and decree of the learned Court District Judge, Sialkot is set aside and that of the learned trial restored.

9. There shall be no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Appeal accepted.